Tag Archives: non-business

VAT: Updated guidance for medical professionals

By Marcus Ward 2 October 2023

HMRC has updated VAT Notice 701/57 – Health professionals and pharmaceutical products.

The changes, in summary, are:

Para 2.1 – Pharmacy technicians (only in England, Scotland and Wales) has been added to the meaning of a health professional list.

Para 2.5 – Services directly supervised by a pharmacist has been removed: Services that are not exempt from VAT.

Para 4.7 has been updated to make it clear when forensic physicians services are exempt healthcare.

Para 5.2 – Services supervised by pharmacists are now included when referring to a health professional: Exemption of care services performed by a person not enrolled on a statutory medical register.

The exemptions covered in the health and welfare area are complex and even slight differences in circumstances can change the VAT liability of a supply. Additionally, there are further exemptions for charities and NFP bodies and the age-old issue of business/non-business.

We advise that specialist advice is sought when considering the VAT position of supplies in this area.

VAT: Difficulties with DIY Housebuilders’ claim – The Spani case

By Marcus Ward 18 September 2023

Latest from the courts

In the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Spani v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 00727 (TC) the issue was whether a claim under the DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme (the scheme) was valid.

Mr Spani appealed against HMRC’s decision to refuse a claim. It was rejected as the respondents concluded that the property was to be used for business purposes because Planning Permission was for a holiday let rather than residential own use. To claim under the scheme, the relevant the property must be used “otherwise than in the course of furtherance of business” – VAT Act 1994, section 35)

Background

The cottage was constructed in Seaford – within the Souths Down National Park and, in order to obtain planning consent, it was required to be made available for letting on a commercial basis for 140 days a year. The appellant contended that it was his primary residence in the UK and any letting (which was interrupted by covid in any case) was/would be incidental to this primary purpose.

The property was listed on Air BnB in order to satisfy the requirements of the planning consent, but the property had not been actively marketed and no lettings had taken place.

Mr Spani contended that the use of the cottage “falls far short of the HMRC’s position that it was the appellant’s intention to use the property for a wholly commercial purpose”. It was simply the appellant’s home in the UK and that an identical property built outside the National Park would not have the Planning Permission holiday let requirement.

Further, if it was a commercial enterprise, Mr Spani could have could have used another reclaim route, viz: registering for VAT and recovering an element of the input tax incurred.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed – The judge opined that “none of these events subsequent to the grant of the Planning Permission and completion certificate detract from the fact that the property was built to be a holiday let (as stipulated by the planning consent) and was therefore constructed in furtherance of a FHL* business”.

Additionally, the FTT stated that: it is plain that the appellant’s plan to live in the property within the FHL regulations does not (and cannot) alter the property into a dwelling… when there is the express prohibition placed on the property to be a dwelling.

The conclusion was that the property was built in furtherance of a business which prohibited a claim.

Commentary

Yet another case highlighting precise requirements of a claim under the scheme and HMRC’s strict application of the rules. Care must always be taken in such cases and we advise professional advice is sought prior to a submission of a claim.

More on similar cases here and here and Top Ten Tips for the scheme.

* Furnished Holiday Let

VAT: B2B and B2C – The distinction and importance

By Marcus Ward 1 August 2023

A key feature of the place of supply rules is the distinction between B2B (business to business) and B2C (business to consumer) supplies. The distinction is important because it determines, inter alia, whether GB VAT is applicable to a supply made by a GB supplier.

Status of the customer:

B2C: A supply is B2C when the customer is a private individual, an organisation with only non-business activities or the supply is wholly for private use (eg for the private use of a business owner)
B2B: A supply is B2B when the customer has any level of business activity (though if a supply is wholly for private use it remains B2C). It does not matter if the supply is for a non-business activity of the customer or if the customer is not VAT registered. All that matters is the customer has some level of business activity – this includes VAT exempt activity and taxable activity below the VAT registration threshold VAT place of supply.

To apply the B2B treatment a GB supplier must obtain evidence that the customer has business activities. If the supplier cannot obtain any evidence, they should apply B2C treatment.

If the customer is VAT registered, the customer’s VAT number is evidence of status and it is good practice to quote this on the supplier’s invoice. A GB supplier should check the customer’s VAT registration number is in the correct format for the country concerned. This can be done via the EC Vies website. for EU customers. NB: Special evidence rules apply to electronically supplied services.
If the customer is not VAT registered, a GB supplier should obtain and retain evidence that the customer has business activities. HMRC state “If your customer is unable to provide a VAT number, you can accept alternative evidence.This includes certificates from fiscal authorities, business letterheads or other commercial documents indicating the nature of the customer’s activities”.

A supplier needs to identify where his customer belongs in order to establish the place of supply.

VERY broadly, depending on the nature of the supply, the rule of thumb is that a B2B service is GB VAT free (it is subject to a reverse charge by the recipient as it is deemed to be “supplied where received”) but a B2C service is generally subject to GB VAT, regardless of the place of belonging of the recipient. There are exceptions to these rules however, such as the use and enjoyment provisions, land related services, hire of transport and admission to events.

Recovery of VAT on company cars

By Marcus Ward 3 July 2023

Further to our guide to the recovery of input tax on motoring expenses we are often asked about the specifics of a business acquiring a motor car. So, this article sets out the different rules.

Purchase of a car

If a business purchases a car outright, regardless of how this is funded, no input tax is claimable at all. However, If the taxpayer is either a taxi or driving instructor business, VAT falls to be 100% recoverable.

Hire Purchase (HP)

This is treated as a supply of goods as the ownership of the car passes at the end of the agreement. Similarly, to an outright purchase, input tax is blocked for all taxpayers except taxi and driving instructor businesses.

Lease hire

If the car is ‘qualifying car’, and is returned at the end of the agreement it is a supply of services; a lease. There is a specific rule which means that 50% of the VAT is recoverable on the rental payments if it is used for business purpose. The 50% block is to cover the private use of the car. Again, a 100% reclaim is possible if it is to be used for hire with a driver for carrying passengers or providing driving instruction.

The 50% block applies to all the VAT on charges paid for the rental of the car. This includes:

optional services — unless they’re supplied and identified separately from the leasing supply on the tax invoice
excess mileage charge — if it forms part of a supply of leasing but not if it was incurred on an excess mileage charge that forms part of a separate supply of maintenance

Personal Contract Purchase (PCP)

This is a little more complex because a PCP can either be treated as a supply of goods (the car), or a supply of services (a lease) depending on the terms of the contract. The following treatment is based on the Mercedes Benz Financial Services case.

The difference between services or goods:

This distinction depends on the level of the final payment. This is known as the Guaranteed Minimum Future Value (GMFV).

Services

If the final optional payment (known as a balloon payment) is set at or above the anticipated market value (the GMFV) of the car at the time the option is to be exercised, the contract will be deemed a supply of leasing services with VAT on each instalment. A business can therefore recover 50% of input tax on each monthly payment. A balloon payment is the final “lump sum” which the agreement sets out is to be paid if a customer chooses to own the car at the end of the agreement.

Goods

If the final optional payment is set below the anticipated market value, such that any rational customer would choose to buy the car, the contract is a supply of goods with a separate supply of finance. VAT is therefore due on the supply of goods in full at the beginning of the contract and the finance element is exempt. In such cases input tax is 100% blocked.

The distinction

It is often difficult to distinguish between services and goods in relation to PCP cars. We find that the wording of contracts is often arcane and unhelpful (and not particularly drafted with VAT in mind). If the supply is not determinable by reference to the agreement documentation, a simple and practical solution is to consider the invoice. Broadly, if it is a lease the supplier will charge VAT on the monthly payments, but a purchase would mean VAT is charged in full up front at the tax point.

Input tax on repairs

If a vehicle is used for business purposes, there is a 100% reclaim of the VAT charged on repairs and maintenance as long as the business paid for the work and the vehicle is used for some business purposes. It does not matter if the vehicle is used for some private motoring or if a business has chosen not to reclaim input tax on road fuel.

VAT – What records must be kept by a business?

By Marcus Ward 5 April 2023

VAT Basics: Requirements for VAT records by taxable persons

I thought that it may be useful to round-up all the record-keeping requirements in one place and focus on what HMRC want to see. It is always good practice to carry out an ongoing review a business’ records to ensure that they comply with the rules.

General requirements

Every taxable person must keep such records as HMRC may require. Specifically, every taxable person must, for the purposes of accounting for VAT, keep the following records:

business and accounting records
VAT account
copies of all VAT invoices issued
VAT invoices received
certificates issued under provisions relating to fiscal or other warehouse regimes
copy documentation issued, and documentation received, relating to the transfer, dispatch or transport of goods overseas and/or imported
credit notes, debit notes and other documents which evidence an increase or decrease in consideration that are received, and copies of such documents issued
copy of any self-billing agreement to which the business is a party
where the business is the customer party to a self-billing agreement, the name, address and VAT registration number of each supplier with whom the business has entered into a self-billing agreement

Additionally

HMRC may supplement the above provisions by a Notice published by them for that purpose. They supplement the statutory requirements and have legal force.

Business records include, in addition to specific items listed above, orders and delivery notes, relevant business correspondence, purchases and sales books, cash books and other account books, records of daily takings such as till rolls, annual accounts, including trading and profit and loss accounts and bank statements and paying-in slips.

Unless the business mainly involves the supply of goods and services direct to the public and less detailed VAT invoices are issued, all VAT invoices must also be retained. Cash and carry wholesalers must keep all till rolls and product code lists.

Records must be kept of all taxable goods and services received or supplied in the course of business (standard and zero-rated), together with any exempt supplies, gifts or loans of goods, taxable self-supplies and any goods acquired or produced in the course of business which are put to private or other non-business use.

All records must be kept up to date and be in sufficient detail to allow calculation of VAT. They do not have to be kept in any set way but must be in a form which will enable HMRC officers to check easily the figures on the VAT return. Records must be readily available to HMRC officers on request. If a taxable person has more than one place of business, a list of all branches must be kept at the principal place of business.

Comprehensive records

In addition, we always advise businesses to retain full information of certain calculations such as; partial exemption, the Capital Goods Scheme, margin schemes, TOMS, business/non-business, mileage and subsistence claims, promotional schemes, vouchers, discounts, location of overseas customers, and OSS, amongst other records. The aim is to ensure that any inspector is satisfied with the records and that any information required is readily available. This avoids delays, misunderstandings and unnecessary enquiries which may lead to assessments and penalties.

If you have any doubts that your business records are sufficient, please contact us.

VAT: DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme – deadline for claims extended

By Marcus Ward 20 March 2023

The DIY Housebuilders’ Scheme is a tax refund mechanism for people who build, or arrange to have built, a house they intend to live in. It also applies to converting commercial property into a house(s). This puts a person who constructs their own home on equal footing with commercial housebuilders. There is no need to be VAT registered in order to make the claim.

One of the main problems was the very strict (and rigorously enforced) deadline of three months for the submission of the claim form. This is from completion of the build (usually this is when the certificate of practical completion is issued) or the building is inhabited, although it can be earlier if the certificate is delayed.

A case on when a house is considered to be complete here.

However, HMRC has announced that this deadline will be extended to six months from a date yet to be announced. This extension is welcome as it is often difficult to collect all the required information and documentation. In addition, the whole process will be digitised some time in the future which will also simplify the process.

The Scheme can be complex, but here is our Top Ten Tips for claimants.

VAT – The Capital Goods Scheme

By Marcus Ward 8 January 2021

A brief guide to the Capital Goods Scheme (CGS)

If a business acquires or creates a capital asset it may be required to adjust the amount of VAT it reclaims. This mechanism is called the CGS and it requires a business to spread the initial input tax claimed over a number of years. If a business’ taxable use of the asset increases it is permitted to reclaim more of the original VAT and if the proportion of the taxable supplies decreases it will be required to repay some of the input tax initially claimed. The use of the CGS is mandatory.

How the CGS works

Normally, VAT recovery is based on the initial use of an asset at the time of purchase (a one-off claim). The CGS works by applying a longer period during which the initial recovery may be adjusted if there are changes in the use of the asset. Practically, the CGS will only apply in situations where there is exempt or non-business use of the asset. A business using an asset for fully taxable purposes will be covered by the scheme, but it is likely that full recovery up front will be possible with no subsequent adjustments required. This will be the position if, say, a standard rated property is purchased, the option to tax taken, and the building let to a third party. The CGS looks at how capital items have been used in the business over a number of intervals (usually, but not always; years). It adjusts both for taxable versus exempt use and for business versus non business use over the lifetime of the asset. Example; a business buys a yacht that is hired out (business use) and it is also used privately by a director (non-business use). However, a more common example is a business buying a property and occupying it while its trade includes making some exempt supplies.

Which businesses does it affect?

Purchasers of certain commercial property, owners of property who carry out significant refurbishment or carry out civil engineering work, purchasers of computer hardware, aircraft, ships, and other vessels over a certain monetary value who incur VAT on the cost. (As the CGS considers the recovery of input tax, only VAT bearing assets are covered by it).

Assets not covered by the scheme

The CGS does not apply if a business;

acquires an asset solely for resale
spends money on assets that it acquired solely for resale
acquires assets, or spends money on assets that are used solely for non-business purposes.

Limits for capital goods

Included in the CGS are:

Land, property purchases – £250,000 or over
Refurbishment or civil engineering works costing £250,000 or over
Computer hardware costing £50,000 or over (single items, not networks)
From 2011, aircraft, ships, and other vessels costing £50,000 or more.

Assets below these (net of VAT) limits are excluded from the CGS.

The adjustment periods

Five intervals for computers
Five intervals for ships and aircraft
Ten intervals for all other capital items

Changes in your business circumstances

Certain changes to a business during a CGS period will impact on the treatment of its capital assets. These changes include:

leaving or joining a VAT group
cancelling your VAT registration
buying or selling your business
transferring a business as a going concern (TOGC)
selling an asset during the adjustment period

Specific advice should be sought in these circumstances.

Examples

A retailer purchases a brand new property to carry on its fully taxable business for £1 million plus £200,000 VAT. It is therefore above the CGS limit of £250,000. The business recovers all of the input tax on its next return. It carries on its business for five years, at which time it decides to move to a bigger premises. It rents the building to a third party after moving out without opting to tax. Under the CGS it will, broadly, have to repay £100,000 of the initial input tax claimed. This is because the use in the ten year adjustment period has been 50% taxable (retail sales) for the first five years and 50% exempt (rent of the property for the subsequent five years).
A company purchases a helicopter for £150,000 plus VAT of £30,000. It uses the aircraft 40% of the time for hiring to third parties (taxable) and 60% for the private use of the director (non-business). The company reclaims input tax of £12,000 on its next return. Subsequently, at the next interval, taxable use increases to 50%. It may then make an adjustment to increase the original claim: VAT on the purchase £30,000 divided by the number of adjustment periods for the asset (five) and then adjusting the result for the increase in business use: £30,000 / 5 = 6000 50% – 40% = £600 additional claim

Danger areas

Overlooking CGS at time of purchase or the onset of building works
Not recognising a change of use
Selling CGS as part of a TOGC
Failing to make required CGS adjustments at the appropriate time
Overlooking the option to tax when renting or selling a CGS property asset
Sale during adjustment period (not a TOGC)
Complexities re; first period adjustments and pre-VAT registration matters
Interaction between CGS and partial exemption calculations

Summary

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the CGS and in certain circumstances it can produce complexity and increased record keeping requirements. There are also a lot of situations where overlooking the impact of the CGS or applying the rules incorrectly can be very costly. However, it does produce a fairer result than a once and for all claim, and when its subtleties are understood, it quite often provides a helpful planning tool.

VAT – Input tax claims. Latest from the courts

By Marcus Ward 1 June 2020

Latest from the courts

In the recent First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Aitmatov Academy an otherwise unremarkable case illustrates the care required when making input tax claims.

The quantum of the claim was low and the technical issues not particularly complex, however, it underlined some basic rules for making a VAT claim.

Background

A doctor organised a cultural event at the House of Lords for which no charge was made to attendees. The event organiser as shown on the event form was the doctor. Aitmatov Academy was shown as an organisation associated with the event. It was agreed that the attendees were not potential customers of Aitmatov Academy and that the overall purpose of the event was cultural and not advertising.

Issues

HMRC disallowed the claim. The issues were:

HMRC contended that the expenses were not incurred by the taxpayer but by the doctor personally (the doctor was not VAT registered)
that if the VAT was incurred by the Academy, it was not directly attributed to a taxable supply
that if the VAT was directly attributed to a taxable supply, it was business entertaining, on which input tax is blocked

Decision

The FTT found that the Academy incurred the cost and consequently must have concluded that the Academy was the recipient of the supply, not the doctor.

However, the judge decided that the awards ceremony was not directly or indirectly linked to taxable supplies made or intended to be made by the Academy, and therefore that the referable input tax should not be allowed. Consequently, the court did not need to consider whether the event qualified as business entertainment.

On a separate point, the appellant contended that, as a similar claim had been paid by HMRC previously, she could not see the difference that caused input VAT in this case to be disallowed. The Tribunal explained that its role is to apply the law in this specific instance and as such it cannot look at what happened in an early case which is not the subject of an appeal.

Commentary

A helpful reminder of some of the tests that need to be passed in order for an input tax claim to be valid. I have written about some common issues with claims and provided a checklist. Broadly, in addition to the tests in this case, a business needs to consider:

whether there was actually a supply
is the documentation correct?
time limits
the VAT liability of the supply
the place of supply
partial exemption
non-business activity – particularly charity and NFP bodies
if the claim is specifically blocked (eg; cars, and certain schemes)

I have also looked at which input tax is specifically barred.

Finally, “entertainment” is a topic all of its own. I have considered what is claimable here in article which includes a useful flowchart.

As always, the message is; if a business is to avoid penalties and interest, if there is any doubt over the validity of a claim, seek advice!

VAT: Intention is crucial – The Sonaecom case

By Marcus Ward 18 May 2020

We cannot control the future…

The Sonaecom case

In the opinion* of the CJEU AG (C-42/19) the importance of a taxpayer’s intention was of utmost importance, regardless of whether that intention was achieved.

Background

Sonaecom intended to acquire a telecoms provider company. As is usual in such cases, input tax was incurred on consultancy received, from, amongst others; accountants and legal service providers. The intention post acquisition was for Sonaecom to make certain charges to the acquired co. These would have been taxable supplies.

Unfortunately, the intended purchase was aborted.

The issue

The issue before the AG was; as no taxable supplies took place as the deal fell through – to what should the input tax incurred on advice be attributed?

Opinion

In the AG’s view the fact that the acquisition was aborted was no reason for the claim for input tax to denied. This was based on the fact that:

Sonaecom was not a “pure holding company”
There was a genuine intention to make taxable supplies (to the acquired co)
There was a direct and immediate link between the costs and the intended supplies
Although the acquisition costs would exceed the proposed management charges, this was not a reason to invalidate the claim
The above analysis was not affected by the fact that the transaction did not take place

Commentary

There are often issues in relation to intentions of a taxpayer. It is clear, and was emphasised in this case, that intention is all important. Of course, intentions can change over a period of time and commercial and political events may thwart or cause intentions to be re-evaluated. There is often an issue about evidencing an intention. HMRC usually require comprehensive documentary evidence to demonstrate an objective. Such evidence is sometime not available for various reasons. Consequently, it is prudent for businesses to record (board meeting minutes etc at the very least) the commercial reasons for taking a certain course of action. This issue quite often arises in transactions in land and property – which can create additional technical issues.

There is legislation in place to cover situations when intentions, or actual events change and which affect the original input tax position: The Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) and The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, Regs 108 and 109.

Other areas of VAT which often to raise issues are management charges and holding companies. HMRC apparently continue to be eager to attack taxpayers in these areas and I have looked at the role of holding companies and the VAT treatment here, here and here.

I think it is useful to bear in mind a question which, in itself does not evidence an intention, but provides commercial coherence – Why were the costs incurred if there was no intention to make the acquisition? This does leave aside the future management charges position but goes some way to provide business logic.

It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds, but I would find it very surprising if the court diverges from this AG opinion.

* AG’s Opinion

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) consists of one judge from each Member State, assisted by eleven Advocates General whose role is to consider the written and oral submissions to the court in every case that raises a new point of law, and deliver an impartial opinion to the court on the legal solution.

VAT: Retrospective claims – standard of proof. NHS Lothian case

By Marcus Ward 24 April 2020

Latest from the courts

An interesting and helpful comment was made by the judge in the NHS Lothian Health Board Court of Session (the Scottish equivalent of the Court of Appeal) case.

Background

The case involved a claim for overpaid VAT going back to 1974. The primary issue was not the existence of the taxpayer’s claim to recover overpaid VAT, but the quantification of that claim, and in particular whether the claim can be quantified with sufficient accuracy to permit an order for repayment of tax to be made. In the previous case it was held that the onus of proving that an amount of tax had been paid and not recovered rested upon the taxpayer and that the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities and Lord Drummond Young agreed with that proposition here.

Judgement

The specific comments which will be of assistance with businesses with similar clams were:

“The fundamental problem in such cases is that primary evidence does not exist owing to the lapse of time. The absence of such evidence, at least in cases such as the present, is not the fault of the taxpayer, and the lack of evidence should not be held against the taxpayer,”

Outcome

The court urged Tax Tribunals (First Tier Tribunal – FTT and Upper Tribunal – UT) to apply a flexible approach to the burden and standard of proof when making decisions in similar cases; of which there is a considerable number. This approach should apply to so called “Fleming” claims and others in respect of overpaid output tax. We understand that 700 such claims were made by NHS authorities in Great Britain alone, and circa 200 of these remain unresolved.

Commentary

In most cases, a taxpayer is only required to retain records for six years. So the comments made in this case should bolster the chances of success for claims made by other businesses, whether they be for overpaid output tax or underclaimed input tax. There are many and varied reasons why sufficiently detailed could be unavailable; we are looking at a potential 46-year time span. In 1974 record keeping was a different world and physical/manual records were usually the only option. It seems only reasonable that HMRC should make the allowances suggested in this case when it is agreed that a claim is valid in all other respects.

Action

If you, or your client, have had a claim rejected on the basis of insufficient supporting primary evidence, it may be worthwhile revisiting it on the basis of this decision. It sets out helpful and clear guidance and provides businesses with effective, appropriate tax relief where applicable.